ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Evaluation of Reporting Methods for Assessment and Surgical Planning of Perianal Fistulas.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perianal fistula is a complex condition where surgeons conduct surgeries based on the mentally mapped images they created from the information found in the radiology report. If not properly treated, a fistula could reoccur. To reduce the chances of reoccurrence, a patient-specific, visual, and accurate depiction of the internal tracts in relation to the pelvic floor is required. A three-dimensional (3D) parametric model generation software was previously developed and evaluated successfully with radiologists. In this paper, the software output is evaluated with two colorectal surgeons for 10 fistula cases. The paper compares three reporting different modes: (1) 3D models only, (2) conventional radiology report and picture archiving and communication system (PACS) magnetic resonance (MR) images, and (3) 3D models + standardized radiology report. The percentage of agreement between surgeons across cases and cognitive load are the primary metrics used for evaluation. Mode 3 superseded both modes 1 and 2, meaning that surgeons prefer to see a 3D model along with a standardized report to plan a case's surgical intervention. Mode 1 superseded mode 2, which also shows surgeons preference to inspect a 3D model rather than inspecting cases the conventional way. Surgeons' agreement in opinions across cases in mode 3 was 85%, whereas it was 18% and 5% in mode 1 and mode 2, respectively. This shows that information was conveyed more consistently across surgeons in mode 3. NASA TLX tests show that surgeons had the least cognitive load while working with mode 3, followed by mode 1 and then mode 2. Overall, the findings indicate that 3D models, even without radiologists' written input, outperform the current standard practice of delivering unstructured radiology reports alongside raw PACS images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.